290 



have perished can seldom be revivified by the imagination. 

 Two events may have been united together in twenty difiPerent 

 ways. It is necessary to speak on this point very plainly, 

 for the most serious consequences are constantly resulting 

 from a use of it, which can be made to rest on no rational 

 principle. 



On the other hand, let us not close our eyes to the danger of 

 fictions getting into history. This is so great, and numbers of 

 writers have been so credulous, that a thorough sifting of the 

 evidence on which historical facts rest is absolutely required. 

 Even in ordinary life, no small number of events get currently 

 reported as facts which a careful inquiry proves to have been 

 fictions. It is impossible to deny that there is a considerable 

 principle of mendacity in man. Both national, party, and sec- 

 tarian feelings have led to the gravest suppressiones veri and 

 suggestiones falsi. If a history of the late German and French 

 war was composed from exclusively French sources of informa- 

 tion, it would contain a large mythic element. In proportion 

 as history rests on one-sided evidences of the character I have 

 referred to, it is liable to suspicion. 



It is impossible to deny that the science of historical criticism - 

 has done us good service. It has banished multitudes of sup- 

 posed facts into the regions of fictions ^ and the world is always 

 benefited by getting rid of a falsehood. An immense mass of 

 fiction had succeeded in introducing itself into history. Those 

 of us who can remember when Rollin was the great authority 

 for ancient history are in a position to estimate the greatness of 

 the change which historical criticism has effected. In those days 

 history consisted of fact and fiction in nearly equal proportions. 

 Little effort was made to test the evidence on which it rested. 

 Authors who lived five hundred years after events were referred 

 to as equal authorities to those who were contemporaneous. 

 The utmost which criticism ventured to do was, either to elimi- 

 nate the supernatural or to rationahze it down to the limits of 

 the possible. 



There is still a great tendency to think that an event is 

 proved to be true if we can adduce the authority of an ancient 

 writer for it. The whole value of such a person^s testimony 

 depends on the interval of time which separates him from the 

 fact which he professes to record. If he lived beyond the period 

 of reasonable historical tradition, he is no better an authority 

 for an event than a writer of modern date, unless it can be 

 shown that he had before him historical materials which have 

 since perished. One constantly hears authorities quoted to 

 prove the truth of facts who lived hundreds of years after them. 

 I have heard, for example, Josephus adduced as an authority 



